Wernher Qualification Adventures

July 28th, 2010  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  1 Comment 

Yesterday, Sean and I managed to qualify for the Wernher Open Pairs finals. The evening session was overall one of the worst sessions of bridge I have played in awhile but we were dealt about a 66% game so were okay to survive. However I did play one hand well, good for 21.5 out of 25. RHO opened 1C, I overcalled 1NT, and we staymaned to 4S. Really, though, getting to 4S and avoiding the singleton spade lead was the good part. I had already gone down on a cold contract by trying to beer and this time I wasn’t going to be deluded into taking an inferior line of play to possibly beer.

Dealer: N Vul: Both	North ♠ 5 ♥ JT84 ♦ Q954 ♣ JT97
West ♠ 9642 ♥ AK5 ♦ 63 ♣ AK64		East ♠ QT73 ♥ 73 ♦ AKJ87 ♣ 52
	South ♠ AKJ8 ♥ Q962 ♦ T2 ♣ Q83

North dutifully led the J of clubs and the play proceeded, club AK, club ruff, diamond AK, heart AK, heart ruff, diamond. South has no counter to this. if he doesn’t ruff, I ruff low, then ruff a club with the 10 and my 9 will score a trump trick at the end. If he ruffs with the 8, I overruff and do the same thing. If he ruffs with the J, I discard my club and he can only take his two top trumps. It’s kind of an interesting position. A trump lead allows the defense to play 4 rounds of trumps and make it a notrump contract, which has virtually no chance to make besides the pseudo-squeeze possibilities. But who would really lead the stiff trump on this auction?

Full Disclosure When You Know Partner Has Forgotten

July 6th, 2010  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  2 Comments 

This past weekend, I came across two bridge laws that may need some change. This first one I guess is more of an ethical question than a bridge law question. I mean, the law that ace asking bids should be announced at the end of the auction, especially if 4NT was not the asking bid, makes sense, but the way it is used sometimes seems unethical. Our opponents had the uncontested auction: 1S-2C-2H-4C-4H-6C-P. Before I lead, the declarer announces that 4C asks for specific aces and 4H shows the ace of hearts but not the ace of diamonds. The play and defense to the hand was irrelevant. He had 12 tricks no matter what, but dummy had QJxxx of hearts and declarer had the ace!

Was it unethical for him to volunteer that information, knowing his partner had not bid correctly or not follwed the agreement, or perhaps the declarer thought they had that agreement but they did not. It’s hard to tell whether this is the actual partnership agreement because it’s not something that’s normally on the cc somewhere and most people don’t carry around detailed system notes. You’re only supposed to announce or alert or announce failures to alert when you are sure you and your partner have an agreement about what it means, otherwise you say nothing. Anyway, assuming that is their actual agreement, should he say anything at all or should he state their agreement with a little caveat that his partner may have forgotten, or a caveat that maybe he forgot? The directors and other top players had very mixed views on this. I know he is well within the ACBL laws to announce the ace-asking bid and fully disclose their agreements, but in this situation I think nothing should have been said at any point as any explanation given in this situation is likely more misleading than saying nothing or it’s giving away too much information about declarer’s hand.

My other little gripe is about the revoke laws. We were defending 5DX and had taken two tricks already and partner still had the boss trump but he ruffed in too early – he still had 1 club in hand when he trumped a club with said top trump. I think any honest player would concede down 1 regardless of what the law is. He doesn’t deserve to make 5 with 3 top losers after we took our two non-trump winners right away. It is my understanding that revoke laws are in place to restore equity, giving the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt and not so much to penalize the revoker? Regardless, I think the rule should be changed to disallow someone to lose the top trump. You should not be able to make 7 off the A of trumps just because of a revoke. In this hand, making 4 would be the most that could ever be made, even with revoke trick penaltied. It is kind of similar to the rule that you can’t revoke at trick 12. Yes, a player pulled the wrong card or had a card hidden or was thinking ahead, but when there is no line of normal play that could allow declarer to take all the tricks, a revoke should not allow that to happen.

Second Hand High

July 6th, 2010  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  No Comments 

The old adage of second hand low except when covering an honor with an honor is something we engrain in the minds of bridge beginners. In the majority of cases, this is the right thing to do but as with every rule, there are exceptions. One is when you need to take an ace right away before it goes away on other good cards or to give partner a ruff. Those situations are reasonably easy to spot, even for an intermediate player. The other common situation that I’m writing about today is something even the best of players sometimes get wrong.

Today I was playing in the flight A Swiss teams at the Atlanta Super Sectional and on two separate occasions, players with well over 5000 masterpoints did not play second hand high when they needed to. I am referring to the situation where dummy in 3NT has something like AJTxx and no sign of an entry outside the suit and declarer leads low toward dummy. With Qx, Kx, Qxx, or Kxx, it is almost always right to play high to disrupt communications. However, with KQx, it is usually right to play low, also to disrupt communications. The declarer is trying to take a double finesse in the suit. Look at what happens if you play low and let the T force an honor from partner. Declarer gets in the lead again and can finesse against you and wind up with 4 tricks.

If you play an honor on the first round of the suit, he can duck and try to finesse you again, possibly winding up with no tricks in the suit if he started with a doubleton. Or he can take the ace and now partner has the boss in the suit and can hold up to keep from establishing dummy’s suit. If declarer started with 3, his chances are better and playing an honor from Hxx is unlikely to gain because partner won’t be able to hold up, having only Hx. The only way this can lose a trick unnecessarily is if declarer has a two-way guess for the Q, but it should be pretty clear if he is playing to establish the suit or to just score the first 3 tricks in the suit.

On the contrary, it is right not to play an honor from KQx when declarer is trying to establish the suit for several tricks because, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, declarer can duck and then finesse later. But if you play and let the T hold and split the honors next time, he may not have a third card in the suit to get back to the good tricks. As before, you must be able to distinguish between whether declarer needs to set up long tricks or just needs tricks quickly. If he needs the tricks quickly, you should split the honors to be sure you get one of the first 2 in the suit. Likewise, it is almost never right to play second hand high from Hxxx in this situation.

Nearly Amazing

July 4th, 2010  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  No Comments 

I’m spending the weekend playing with Alli at the Atlanta super sectional. After a 3rd place in bracket 1 compact KO with Theri an Meg, we were in evening swiss playing against Mike Cappelletti Jr and partner. In the 6 board match, I had 3 tough interesting hands that I could have been a hero on but none quite worked out for me. First, I was declarer in 3NT:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠   Kxxx ♥   Q9xxx ♦   Tx ♣   Ax
West ♠   AQx ♥   A8x ♦   Qx ♣   KJxxx		East ♠   Jxx ♥   KT ♦   AJx ♣   Qxxx
	South ♠   xxx ♥   Jxx ♦   Kxxxx ♣   xx

I opened 1NT (west), Mike bid 2D for majors, and Alli bid 3NT and I got a low heart lead. After inserting the 10, hoping he had lead from QJxxx, I made the mistake of not ducking.  If I duck, knowkc out the club, then give up the diamond K to south, she won’t have another heart to lead and I’ll come to 1 spade, 2 hearts, 2 diamonds, and 4 clubs for the contract. I still could have made the contract by endplaying Mike but I forgot to cash the ace of diamonds before running the clubs. Mike would either have to discard a good heart, discard his diamond exit card, or blank his K of spades before I throw him in with a heart at trick 9. Of course, if he blanked his K of spades and kept his second diamond, I’d have to guess that he started with 4 spades instead of 5. I’m not sure I would get that right, but without cashing the diamond before putting him in, he is sure to have a safe exit card.  grr. Fortunately, Chris Moll also went down 1.

Next, I was in 4S on these cards afte Mike (north) had opened 1C and his partner bid 1D over partner’s double:

West ♠   J8xx ♥   Txxx ♦   JTxx ♣   Q

East ♠   KQT7 ♥   Kxx ♦   AQ ♣   AKxx

The lead was the 5 of diamonds. Clearly I needed to take the take the A, play a club to my hand and lead a spade or heart toward dummy, but I didn’t quite expect the lead to be a stiff, so after a lost finesse and a ruff, I went down 1. The 4-1 trump split is a bit annoying anyway, so I may wind up going down anyway, and they did go down one at the other table as well.

In the last board of the set, after 3 pushes and 2 +1’s for the good guys, I found myself defending 4H.

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠   98xx ♥   QJx ♦   x ♣   KJxxx
West ♠   AKxx ♥   Kxx ♦   Txxx ♣   Tx		East ♠   JTxx ♥   xx ♦   AKQx ♣   xxx
	South ♠   Q ♥   AT9xx ♦   Jxxx ♣   AQx

Yes, I probably should double or bid 4S but I didn’t like my values for 4S and Mike surely has some goods. Anyway, we all thought she was cold on a spade or diamond lead, but it looks like tapping her could be best. She has 9 tricks in the round suits but needs a diamond ruff for trick 10. That doesn’t seem like it should be too difficult. But I started with a club, thinking we may need a ruff to beat this thing since chances are they each have a stiff in spades and diamonds. She won in hand, played a diamond to my partner, who led another club and looked quite disappointed when I followed suit. Next was a H finesse into me. If I duck and she repeats the finesse, I can take that and lead the last heart to set it, but she should forgo the second heart finesse and just cash the heart ace and start running clubs to make the contract. I didn’t duck but what now? I can now see her 10 tricks. I can’t stop the diamond ruff. Actually, we all missed this but it turns out I can still defeat it by leading another heart. Then when she trumps a diamond, she can’t get to her hand to pull my last trump. If she leads a spade, I can win and cash a diamond or two. In this case, she can’t run the clubs with a trump out because my trump left is a small one instead of the K. So, what did I do when in with the heart king? I led my lowest spade, of course. After winning the Q, we all waited a couple of minutes and the kibitzer finally announced that it’s her lead, totally surprised. If partner has the Q, I can get my club ruff to beat the contract. Instead they made 5 easily from there. Meh. 4S went down 2 undoubled at the other table and that was the match.

U21 USBC: Talent is There, Experience to Come

June 28th, 2010  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  No Comments 

This past weekend I spent a lot of time watching on BBO Vugraph the Under 21 US Bridge Championships rather than the finals of the Open USBC. While the bridge for the most part was noticeably amateurish, I enjoyed it because I know almost everyone in it and want to see them play and mature and want to think that I had something to do with them getting to the 2030 USBC finals but then losing to me. 😉

The favorites – Adam Kaplan, Adam Grossack, John Marriott, Alex Hudson, Jourdain Patchett, and Jesse Stern – had no trouble winning. They are all rather established partnerships and quite experienced players and should do well in the world competition. The second place team, probably most people’s pick to be second, consisted of Zandy Rizzo, Murphy Green, Richard Jeng, and Andrew Jeng. Both teams will represent the USA in the U21 world championships in Philadelphia in October. The Rizzo team fell behind 40-0 in the USA2 final against Ricoh Das, William Dang, Mili Raina, and Angie Green but would up winning 169-90. All of the kids clearly have bright minds and a flare for the game and have potential to be very good. It is experience that was the main distinction between the top three teams. Each pair made their share of good plays but the top pairs were able to avoid bidding misunderstandings and didn’t suffer much from two very common problems of young players today.

The first common mistake is playing too fast. By junior standards, I am a slow player. By average bridge player standards, I play at lightning speed 95% of the time and then at a snail’s pace on an occasional difficult hand. There are some hands that do not require much thought but until you are sure of that, it is best to take some time and play deliberately. Even with the screens, the teams were sometimes finishing 16 board segments in an hour and a half, only about 5.5 minutes per board, while the open teams were only on board 11 or so. Time and time again, we noticed declarers playing too quickly, especially early in the hand, or defenders not pausing for a few seconds to think more about what’s going on. Then just a few seconds later they realize their mistake. Bridge players have big egos, and perhaps playing fast is just another (slightly delusional) way to show off one’s superiority to others but that’s another article. These mistakes happen at all levels – Friday, I saw Bob Hamman forget to pitch a quick loser away on an AK in dummy before leading trumps (missing the A of trumps).

The second major problem players in this phase of learning where people know enough to think about many possibilities but not enough to realize that most of the possibilities are so unlikely to actually happen is that they just bid too much, particularly without having a fit. By the same token, the same players that bid too much without a fit don’t bid enough with a fit. Having a fit with partner in a way, gives you a license to be more aggressive as there is some safety in going to higher levels – it means the opponents probably have a fit and can make more, and taking tricks, whether in NT or a suit, is just easier when you don’t have singletons opposite KJTxx. This is something that one must learn from experience. There are few life lessons that we can just accept from other people telling us – we have to go make the mistakes ourselves to learn. Learning when to quit bidding can be a hard lesson to learn. After going down in 3NT on misfitting hands several times, one slowly learns. Bidding NT is not normally a good way to “rescue” partner from a misfit. Occasionally, you’ll get a favorable lie of the cards or have an unexpected club fit and it will work well, but more often than not, passing partner in 2S in a 6-0 fit is the best thing you can do. This is why I don’t like the idea of playing new suit non-forcing opposite partner’s weak two. There’s no reason to think partner will have better support for you than you have for him and you may only be getting yourself a level higher. Hands usually play better in the long suit of the weaker hand anyway. Plus, passing partner without a fit and making him suffer a hopeless contract has a side benefit of making him think twice, then three times, then not at all, about preempting on a T high suit or open 3C on a 5 bagger. There is a reason so few world class bridge players are young and it’s not because young people aren’t as smart or talented – we can’t learn from other people’s mistakes nearly as well as we learn from our own and it takes time to make mistakes (or, if you prefer, gain experience) and improve our neural network of card sense and bidding sanity.

I remember Richard Jeng finding a nice endplay in the last match to score an overtrick in 3S, I believe. Kaplan made a few impressive declarer plays – the play in a 4HX contract Saturday was pretty interesting. There were others, too, but those are two that stuck out in my mind the most. I could go back and write about specific hands but unless someone wants to pay me, I’m not quite that motivated to write about hands that don’t directly involve me, so I’ll leave that to the Bridge Bulletin and Bridge World writers for now. 🙂

3 Beers in a Row, 10 Hour Tennis Matches, World Cup Drama, USBC

June 24th, 2010  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  2 Comments 

I must say that my production at work has been down this week due to trying to keep up with the World Cup and Wimbledon. I suppose I could block all that out from my mind during the day when it’s all happening and just watch highlights or reruns at home, but after work I have other cool things to do like watch the US Bridge Championships on BBO Vugraph and play bridge and do yard work.

First it was the United States’ late goal in the 91st minute to put the US into the second round of the World Cup, then the never-ending tennis match between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut at Wimbledon. I mean, seriously, their 5th set has gone on for over 7 hours and is extending into a 3rd day.

I saw only a couple of hands at the USBC in the 2 hours I had between work and going to play bridge, but even those were exciting. Ron Smith and Billy Cohen had slams on 4 of the 5 hands I watched, including a 4NT opening bid, which was apparently blackwood followed by a 5NT query, which I would have thought would be asking for specific kings, but Cohen went directly to 7NT with no kings (but a potentially useful Q to go along with the A and a side QJ). I guess it was a good bid since the heart K was onside.

Anyway, the real excitement came at the bridge club this evening. But it would have been more exciting if I was playing with a partner and opponents who recognized the humor and incredible odds against what was happening. The first 3 hands of the night, I declarer 4H making 6, 4H making 4, and 3NT making 6, and on all 3 I won the last trick with the beer card, the ♦7. They were all totally legitimate. The defense could have prevented an overtrick or two or three, but I don’t think they could stop the beering, as the cards laid.

I picked up: Q, Txx, J987, KJxxx at unfavorable vulnerability. RHO deals: P-P-3S-X-P to me. I opted for 4H, thinking the Moysian might play well, especially since it’s matchpoints and I’ll be tapped in the hand with shorter trumps (I hope I have sorter trumps, anyway). Partner puts down a beautiful dummy: xx, AKQxx, AKx, Axx. After 2 rounds of spades, I drew trumps in 3 rounds and played the AK of diamonds, luckily finding LHO with QT doubleton and the beer was easy to score from there. On the other 4H hand, all I had to to was set up the diamond suit of Tx opposite KJ87x and manage my entries well, and the 3NT hand was really easy to score the beer, having 6 running diamonds. A different opening lead may have made it difficult to score the beer without giving up chances for overtricks but who can fault LHO for leading a club after her partner had opened 1C. What are the odds?

Triple Squeeze

June 21st, 2010  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  No Comments 

Last night I was playing on line and my opponent claimed 3NT making to speed up the game, but dummy commented on his failure to try for any overtricks and I soon realized that he would surely make more than 3 – if he just cashes his winners in a reasonable way, I could be squeezed. Claim was rejected and he went ahead and executed the triple squeeze, now double-dummy.

Dealer: West Vul: none		Gideon
		♠	A863
		♥	AQ632
		♦	T6
		♣	93
Andre				Shaz
♠	97			♠	542
♥	JT87			♥	954
♦	K32			♦	Q954
♣	AK62			♣	J85
		Howard
		♠	KQJT
		♥	K
		♦	AJ87
		♣	QT74

1♦ was either a 10-15 canape opening or a balanced 11-14 or 18-19. My opening lead was the ♠9. Declarer has 8 top tricks and after winning the opening lead in hand, played a diamond to the T and Q. A diamond back would have prevented any overtricks. If he finesses either the 8 or the J, I win and can cash out, but even if I don’t cash out, I can’t be squeezed because I no longer have to guard diamonds. And if he goes up with the ace, I also can’t be squeezed because when the squeeze card is played (the 4th spade), he won’t have an entry to both the heart threat and the diamond threat cards.

In reality, Shaz played the ♣J, which I agree with, covered and won by me. And I returned a low club, sadly not finding partner with the 10. So the ♣9 was Howard’s 9th trick, but now with this ending and me being marked with all the remaining high cards from the bidding, it’s a fairly easy squeeze to execute to make 4. Declarer cashes the ♥K and the rest of the spades, ending in dummy. Before the play of the last spade, here’s the situation.

Dealer: Vul:		Gideon
		♠	A
		♥	AQ63
		♦	6
		♣
Andre				Shaz
♠				♠
♥	JT8			♥	95
♦	K2			♦	954
♣	A			♣	8
		Howard
		♠	T
		♥
		♦	AJ8
		♣	T7

I clearly cannot discard a heart for that gives dummy 2 extra heart tricks. I can’t discard a club because that would make declarer’s 10 and 7 good and he surely has the ♦A to get back to his hand. So I part with the deuce of diamonds and hope that partner happens to have the suit stopped. On the AQ of hearts, declarer discards 2 clubs, and then the ace of diamonds. Partner holds on to the 954 of diamonds and takes the last trick, our 3rd defensive trick. I suppose this is what you call a triple squeeze.

Bridge Etiquette – Asking about the Opponents’ Bids

June 14th, 2010  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  7 Comments 

So, this weekend at the D7 GNT Flight A qualifying was not a very memorable experience. One round, however, in the sectional Swiss that we qualified for by placing 8th in the 10 team round robins Saturday, was rather humorous. And it’s a good lesson in how not to act at the bridge table. The pair at first seemed to be reasonably experienced.

On board 2, LHO looks at our convention card for about 30 seconds, puts it back where I had it, and asks “Do you play 2/1?” “It’s at the top of the damn card that you were just looking at.” No, don’t respond like that either (a simple yes sufficed).

Third board, white vs. red, it’s 2 passed to me and I open a weak 2♥ on a 2-6-3-2 12 count. They somewhat rationally bid to 4♠ and go down 2.  Had I opened 1♥ they may have done 1 trick better and may have stayed out of game. Actually our teammates were making 3♥ our way so it was a 2 imp gain. Anyway, LHO was visibly upset that I had a little more than anyone else at the table expected me to have. But of course, our card is marked very light 3rd seat and very light preempts so this bid is clearly within range.

Fourth board, I open 1♣ , LHO passes, partner bids 1♥, RHO passes, I bid 2♥, LHO asks if 1♣ was natural (yes), partner bids 4♥, all pass. Not surprisingly, LHO has 6 clubs and RHO dutifully leads a ♣. Nothing really mattered on this hand and it was a push and we didn’t comment on the unauthorized information given to RHO. This inquiry probably should never be made but if it is done, it should be after the opening lead or possibly immediately after the bid if he has any possibility of bidding on the hand.

Next board, LHO opens 1♥, two passes, and I balance with 2♣. Partner bids 3NT and LHO jumps in his seat and noticeably shakes his head. RHO dutifully leads not a heart from Kx. Again the lead didn’t make a difference and he made 5 for a push and no comment was made about the UI. Yes, on this auction, my partner tends to have something like a trap pass (with very good hearts) or a takeout double of 1♣ (and therefore probably 4 hearts) so a heart lead is often not right in this situation, but LHO’s body language conveyed his bad heart suit quite clearly.

Last board of the set, LHO opens 1♦, partner doubles, RHO passes, I bid 1♠, LHO asks if the X was takeout. He competes to 3♦ and I compete to 3♠ , making. I guess there’s not really any unauthorized information given by asking if it’s a takeout double, it is just odd. I dunno.

Often times I think I should try to be nice and educate on bridge ethics or politely call the director over after the round but this time I just wanted to leave.

When Should I Take a Safety Play?

June 10th, 2010  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  2 Comments 

Although I do have a preference for matchpoints and consider my overall style better suited for that type of game, safety plays are among my favorite kind of declarer plays. In today’s hand, there are a couple of subtle options. South is in 4♥ after an uncontested auction and west leads the ♦Q.

North
♠	KJxx
♥	Jxx
♦	xxx
♣	Axx
South
♠	Axx
♥	AKQxx
♦	Ax
♣	xxx

You might be able to make it on some sort of strip and endplay but you don’t know enough about the distribution and that’s not really a possibility to consider. The only real way to make 5 is to draw trumps, play ace of spades and take a spade finesse. This line will make 5 when spades are 3-3 with the Q onside, an 18% chance. It will make only 3 when the suit is 4-2 and the Q is off (24%) or when RHO has 5 or 6 spades with the Q (7%). Combined, this is a 31% chance you’ll go down with this line, and you’ll make 4 51% of the time: 3-3 w/ Q off (18%), 4-2 w/ Q on (24%), 5 or 6 spades w LHO or stiff Q with RHO (9%). That means on average, you’ll make 3.87.

Let us consider another line of play, a line that is only available on a non-club lead, for a club lead would cut out an entry to dummy. What are the percentages of playing the K and A of spades first and then leading low towards the jack? This will never get 4 spade tricks because if the Q falls, the suit cannot split 3-3, so it essentially gives up the chance of an overtrick, but does it fact make the contract more likely to succeed. This line will make 4 77% of the time: any 3-3 split (36%), any other time the Q is onside (32%), Q or QX offside (9%). You will go down 23% of the time: RHO with at least 4 spades including the Q. On average this makes 3.77 tricks, slightly worse then the previous line.

In other words, playing the AK first wins an extra trick (and makes the contract when the other way goes down) when east has Qx of spades (8%), and the finesse wins an overtrick when west has Qxx (16%).

So, how do you decide what line of play to take? In a matchpoint game? In imps? In matchpoints, you should consider how likely the field is to be in the same contract. In this case 4♥ seems to be an easy and normal contract to reach so you probably should try for the maximum number of tricks. In an average game, the field will take the straight up finesse and the matchpoints to be won by taking the safety play when it wins should be about equal to the matchpoints lost when it loses, relative to the straight finesse. If you decide that a significant portion of the field will be in a partscore or in 3NT making only 3, you would be even more concerned with making the contract for just making would already be a good score.

In imps, it’s a little different. You don’t care so much about the 1 imp you could win by making an overtrick but you care about not losing the 10 or 12 imps (Depending on vulnerability) when you go down and they make at the other table. If the probability of making an overtrick is 10 or 12 times as big as the potential gain from a safety play, then it’s an even chance, but this time the ratio is 2:1. By taking the safety play as opposed to the normal finesse at the other table, you’ll push the board 76% of the time, win 1 imp 16% of the time, and lose 10 or 12 imps 8% of the time, so in this form of scoring, it’s clear to take the safety play.

Endplay for 3NT

June 7th, 2010  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  2 Comments 

This hand is from the the swiss team game yesterday. At my table the opponents (south) played 3D making and at the other table, north played 3NT making, on a club lead from east, but 3NT by south is a rather interesting contract that I really though they would get to at my table.

Dealer: East Vul: none		North
		♠	KQTx
		♥	Q
		♦	AQTxx
		♣	AQx
West				East
♠	9xx			♠	AJ8
♥	T8xxx			♥	AJx
♦	x			♦	xxx
♣	JT8x			♣	K9xx
		South
		♠	xxx
		♥	K9xx
		♦	KJxx
		♣	xx

1NT was 11-14. This is basically a double-dummy problem since the bidding pin-points almost all of the high cards and marks west with 5 hearts. So, on a low heart lead to the ace and back a heart, how would you play to make 3NT? We surely must duck trick 2 to cut communication to west’s good hearts. So, we have 5 diamonds, 1 club, 1 heart, and 1 spade (after knocking out the ace). Where will the 9th trick come from? Possibly spades and possibly clubs. But you must decide at trick 3 what to do. East is marked with the king of clubs from the bidding so the only way to score a 2nd club trick is to endplay him, and the only way to score a 2nd spade trick is for west to have the jack or east the AJ doubleton. On the hearts, you’ll have to pitch from dummy twice, surely a spade and a club. Cash 3 diamonds ending in hand, then play a spade to the K, ducked (if he takes this, he has to lead back into the spade or club tenaces). Play a diamond back to hand and lead another spade to the 10. After taking his ace he will be endplayed and have to lead a club into dummy’s AQ at trick 11.  Note this also wins when west has the jack of spades.

Would you have made 3NT on the ♣J opening lead? It’s clear the east has the ♣Q so going up with the ace and playing to keep west off lead must be right. This is considerably harder. Surely the first time east gets in with a spade, he will play ace and another heart. Then the defense will inevitably get 2 spades, 2 hearts, and a club. So the best line may be to case the 5 diamonds immediately and carefully watch east’s discards. He can safely discard 1 club but if he discards a second club you can lead a low club off dummy to get his now-blank K. If he discards a heart, you won’t need to hold up on the second heart and can endplay east as above, losing a club instead of a second heart. If he discards a spade you can drop his jack of spades. Of course, this will all look silly if west holds the jack of spades and a simple finesse of the spade 10 was all you needed to do.